[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

The History of Chivalry, by G. P. R. James, Esq., Second Edition; Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, London; 1830, pp. 77-97.



77

CHAPTER V.

THE CHIVALRY OF EUROPE TAKES THE FIELD — THE LEADERS — GODFREY OF BOUILLON — CONDUCTS HIS ARMY TOWARDS CONSTANTINOPLE — HUGH THE GREAT — LEADS HIS ARMY THOUGH ITALY — EMBARKS FOR DURAZZO — TAKEN PRISONER — LIBERATED — ROBERT, DUKE OF NORMANDY — WINTERS IN ITALY — ARRIVES AT CONSTANTINOPLE — ROBERT, COUNT OF FLANDERS — JOINS THE REST — BOEMOND OF TARENTUM — TANCRED — THEIR MARCH — DEFEAT THE GREEKS — BOEMOND DOES HOMAGE — TANCRED AVOIDS IT — THE COUNT OF TOULOUSE ARRIVES — REFUSES TO DO HOMAGE — ROBERT OF NORMANDY DOES HOMAGE.

WHILE the undisciplined and barbarous multitudes who first set out, were hurrying to destruction, various princes and leaders were engaged, as I have before said, in collecting the Chivalry of Europe under the banner of the cross. Six distinguished chiefs — Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Loraine — Hugh the Great, Count of Vermandois, and brother of Philip, King of France — Robert, Duke of Normandy, brother of William Rufus — Robert, Count of Flanders — Boemond, Prince of Tarentum — and Raimond, Count of Toulouse — conducted six separate armies towards Constantinople: and I propose, in this chapter, to follow each of them till their junction in Bithynia.

It is indeed a pleasure to turn our eyes, from scenes of horror and crime, to the contemplation of those great and shining qualities — those noble and enthusiastic virtues, which entered into the composition of that rare quintessence, the spirit of Chivalry.

Doubtless, in the war which I am about to paint 78 there occurred many things that are to be deeply regretted, as furnishing abundantly that quantity of alloy which is ever, unhappily, mixed with virtue’s purest gold; but, at the same time, I now come to speak of men, in many of whom, splendid courage, and moral beauty, and religious zeal, and temperate wisdom, and generous magnanimity, combined to form the great and wonderful of this earth’s children. Indeed, if ever there was a man who well merited the glorious name of a true knight, that man was Godfrey of Bouillon; and few have described him without becoming poets for that once.

I will not borrow from Tasso — who had the privilege of eulogium — but, in striving to paint the character of the great leader of the crusade, I shall take the words of one of the simplest writers of his age,1 and give them as nearly as possible in their original tone: “He was beautiful in countenance,” says Robert the Monk, “tall in stature, agreeable in his discourse, admirable in his morals, and at the same time so gentle, that he seemed better fitted for the monk than for the knight; but when his enemies appeared before him, and the combat approached his soul became filled with mighty daring; like a lion, he feared not for his person — and what shield, what buckler, could resist the fall of his sword?”

Perhaps of all men of the age, Godfrey of Bouillon was the most distinguished. His mother Ida, daughter of Godfrey, Duke of Loraine, was celebrated for her love of letters,2 and from her it is probably that Godfrey himself derived that taste for literature, so singular amongst the warriors of that day. He spoke several languages, excelled in every chivalrous exercise, was calm and deliberate in council, firm and decided in resolution; he was active, clearsighted 79 and prudent, while he was cool, frank, and daring; in the battle he was fierce as the lion, but in victory he was moderate and humane.

Though still in his prime of years when the crusades were preached, he was already old in exploits; he had upheld Henry IV. on the imperial throne, had attacked and forced the walls of Rome, and had shone in a hundred fields, where his standard ever was raised, upon the side of honour and of virtue.

Long ere the idea of such an enterprise as the crusade, became general in Europe, Godfrey had often been heard to declare, when tales were brought him of the miseries in the Holy Land, that he longed to travel to Jerusalem,3 not with staff and scrip,4 but with spear and shield; and it may well be conceived that his was one of the first standards, raised in the ranks of the cross. A fever, that had hung upon him for some time, left him at the tidings, and he felt as if he had shaken off a load of years, and recovered all his youth. 5

His fame as a leader, soon collected an immense number of other barons and knights, who willingly ranged themselves under his banner; and we find that besides Baldwin, his brother6 — and many other relations — the lords of St. Paul, of Hainault, of Gray, of Toul, of Hache, of Conti, and of Montagne, with their knights and retainers, had joined him before the beginning of August,7 and towards the middle of that month they began their march with all the splendour of Chivalry.8

The progress of this new body of crusaders was directed, like that of Peter the Hermit, towards Hungary; but the conduct maintained by the followers of Godfrey, was as much remarkable for its strict discipline, moderation, and order, as that of his predecessors had 80 been for turbulence and excess.9 The first objects, however, that presented themselves on the Hungarian frontier were the unburied corpses of the fanatic crowd slain near Mersburg.

Here then Godfrey paused during three weeks,10 investigating calmly the causes of the bloody spectacle before him; after which he wrote to Carloman, King of Hungary; and his letter on this occasion, mingling firmness with moderation, gives a fair picture of his noble and dignified character. Having mentioned the horrible sight which had arrested him in his progress, and the rumours he had heard, he proceeds — “However severe may have been the punishment inflicted on our brethren, whose remains lie round about us, if that punishment was merited, our anger shall expire; but if, on the contrary, you have calumniated the innocent, and given them up to death, we will not pass over in silence the murder of the servants of God, but will instantly show ourselves ready to avenge the blood of our brethren.”11

It was easy for Carloman to prove that the aggression had been on the side of the crusaders; and after various acts of confidence between Godfrey12 and the king, the army of the cross was permitted to pass through Hungary, which they accomplished in safety and peace, maintaining the strictest discipline and regularity, and trading with the people of the country with good faith and courtesy. Hence, proceeding through Bulgaria and Thrace, Godfrey led his troops peacefully on to Philippopoli, where he was met by deputies from the emperor, charged with orders to see that the crusaders should be furnished with every kind of necessary provision.

In passing through Dacia and Bulgaria, the army of Godfrey had been not a little13 straightened for food, 81 and it is impossible to say what might have been the consequences, had the same dearth been suffered to continue. The prudent conduct of the emperor, did away all cause of violence, and, after the arrival of his deputies, the troops of the cross celebrated his liberality with joy and gratitude.

News soon reached the army14 of Godfrey, however, which changed their opinion of Alexius, and showed him as the subtle and treacherous being, that he really was. To explain what this news consisted of, I must turn for a moment to another party of crusaders, who, while Godfrey pursued his peaceful course through Hungary, marched towards the general meeting-place at Constantinople, by the way of Italy.

Hugh, Count of Vermandois, had assembled an army even superior in number to that of Godfrey of Bouillon, and was himself in every respect calculated to shine at the head of such an armament. He was gallant,15 brave, handsome, and talented; but the calm and dignified spirit of moderation, which so characterized Godfrey of Bouillon, was wanting in the brother of the French king. Joined to his expedition, though marching in separate bodies, and at distinct times,16 were the troops of Robert, Duke of Normandy, and Stephen, Count of Blois; with those of Robert, Count of Flanders, in another division.17

82

The Count of Vermandois, impetuous and proud, took his departure before his companions, traversed Italy, and embarking at Barri, landed with but a scanty train at Durazzo. His expectations were high, and his language haughty, supposing he should find in the Greek emperor, the same humbled supplicant who had craved, in abject terms, assistance against the infidels, from his Christian brethren of the west. But the position of the emperor had now changed. The Turks, occupied with other interests, no longer menaced his frontier. The imperial city slept in peace and splendour; and if he had any thing to fear, it was from his own restless and turbulent subjects rather than from his Saracen foes. Nor, in fact, had he ever been desirous of any thing like the expedition that was entering his dominions. He had prayed for aid and assistance to defend his country, but Urban had preached a crusade, and the princes were not in arms to re-conquer the Christian territories in Asia, as well as to protect those of Europe. He had gladly heard of the crusade, and willingly consented to it, it is true, as he well knew it would afford a mighty diversion in his favour, but he then dreamed not of the armed millions that were now swarming towards his capital. His position, too, had changed, as I have said, and he immediately determined upon a line of policy, well suited to the weak subtlety of his character.

Alexius was one of those men whose minds are not of sufficient scope to view life as a whole, and who therefore have not one great object in their deeds; who act for the petty interests of the moment, and whose cunning, compared with the talents of a really great mind, is like the skill of a fencing-master compared with the genius of a great general. He saw not, 83 and felt not, the vast ultimate benefit which he might receive, from maintaining a dignified friendship with the princes commanding the crusade. He did not perceive what an immense and powerful engine was placed, if he chose it, at his disposition. In his narrow selfishness, he only beheld a temporary danger from the great forces that were approaching, and he strove to diminish them by every base and petty artifice. He did not endeavour to make himself great by their means, but he tried to bring them down to his own littleness. It is true that on some occasions he showed feelings of liberality and humanity; but from his general conduct it is but fair to infer that these were the inconsistencies of selfishness; and that though he was sometimes prudent enough to be liberal, he was not wise enough to be uniformly generous.

On the arrival of Hugh at Durazzo, he was at first received with respect, and entertained with honour and profusion; and thus finding himself at ease, he was induced to remain for a time in confident security. Suddenly, however, without a pretence for such violence, he was arrested, together with his train, and sent to Constantinople, some authors say, in chains.18

Nevertheless, it is not probable that Alexius dared to carry his inhospitality so far; and one of the historians19 of the day particularly marks, that the prisoner was treated with every testimony of respect. Guibert also ventures a supposition respecting the motives of Alexius, far superior to the general sterile course of ancient chronicles. He imagines — and I wonder that the idea has not been adopted by any one — that the object of the Greek emperor, in confining Hugh, was to obtain from him, before the other princes should arrive, that act of homage which he intended to exact from all. The brother of the King of France himself having taken the oath, would be so strong a precedent, 84 that it is more than probable, Alexius20 fancied the rest of the crusaders would easily agree to do that which their superior in rank, had done previous to their arrival.

At Philippopoli21 the news of Hugh’s imprisonment reached the army of Godfrey de Bouillon, and with the prompt but prudent firmness of that great leader’s character, he instantly sent messengers to Alexius, demanding the immediate liberation of the Count of Vermandois and his companions, accompanying the message with a threat of hostilities, if the demand were not conceded.

Godfrey then marched on to Adrianople,22 where he was met by his deputies, bringing the refusal of the emperor to comply with his request: in consequence of which the country was instantly given up to pillage; and so signal were the effects of this sort of vengeance, that Alexius speedily found himself forced to put his prisoners at liberty. The moment that a promise to this effect was received, Godfrey recalled his forces; and with wonderful discipline and subordination, they instantly abandoned the ravagers they were before licensed to commit, and marched on peacefully towards Constantinople. Had the armies of the cross continued to show such obedience and moderation, Palestine would now have been Christian.

In the neighbourhood of the imperial city, Godfrey pitched his tents, and the innumerable23 multitude of his steel-clad warriors, struck terror into the heart of the fearful monarch of the east.24 To the Count of Vermandois, however, it was a sight of joy; and issuing forth from Constantinople with his friends and followers, he galloped forward to the immense camp of the crusaders, where casting himself into the arms of Godfrey,25 85 he gave himself up to such transports of delight and gratitude, that the bystanders were moved to tears.

The emperor now turned the whole force of his artful mind to wring from Godfrey an act of homage, and for several weeks he continued, by every sort of fluctuating baseness, to disturb his repose, and to irritate his followers. At one time, he was all professions of kindness and liberality; at another, he breathed nothing but warfare and opposition. Sometimes the markets were shut to the crusaders, sometimes the private stores of the emperor himself were opened.

At length, after having twice defeated the banks of plunderers sent by Alexius to attack him,26 Godfrey gave way to his wrath, and for six days successively ravaged the country round Constantinople with fire and sword. Alexius, on this, again changed his conduct, and with every profession of regard demanded an interview with the chief of the crusaders, offering his son as a hostage for his good faith. With this safeguard Godfrey, followed by several other noble knights, entered Constantinople, and proceeded to the imperial palace, clothed in his robes of peace,27 and bearing purple and ermine and gold, instead of the iron panoply of war.28

86

The great leader was received by the emperor with the highest distinction, was honoured with the kiss of peace, and underwent that curious ceremony of an adoption of honour (as it was then called) as son to the emperor.29 He was clothed with imperial robes,30 and the monarch calling him his son, nominally placed his empire at Godfrey’s disposal. In return for the distinctions he had received — and probably pressed by Hugh, Count of Vermandois, who loved not to stand alone, in having yielded homage to Alexius — Godfrey consented to give the emperor his hand, according to the feudal forms of France, and to declare himself his leigeman.

His fears dissipated by this concession, and his hopes of winning the princes who were to follow, by so illustrious an example, raised to the highest pitch, Alexius loaded Godfrey and his followers with magnificent 87 presents, and suffered them to depart. Peace was now permitted to remain unbroken; and after having refreshed themselves for some days, the army of the crusaders passed the Hellespont, and encamped at Chalcedon,31 to wait the arrival of their brethren.

It is more than probable that Godfrey was induced to quit the original place of rendezvous by the solicitations of Alexius, who took care, it has been since observed, to guard his capital from the presence of any two of the crusading hosts at one time.

Boemond, prince of Tarentum, and son of the famous Guiscard, had quitted Italy shortly after the departure of Godfrey from Loraine. Various tales are told of the manner in which he first declared his purpose of joining the crusade. Some have asserted, that on hearing of the expedition, while engaged in the siege of Amalfi, he dashed his armour to pieces with his battle-axe,32 and caused it to be formed into small crosses, which he distributed among his soldiery. Others reduce the anecdote to a less chivalrous, but perhaps more civilized degree of energy, and state, that he caused his mantle to be cut into crosses for his troops.33

As many relate the tale, it is likely to have had some foundation; and there is no doubt that Boemond abandoned all his vast possessions in Italy, with the reserve only of Tarentum, and devoted himself to the wars of the cross. His presence might have proved more generally advantageous to the cause, had he not, by this enthusiastic renunciation, given himself other motives in the warfare before him, besides those of religion and humanity. He had naturally in his veins quite sufficient of the blood of Guiscard, to require no additional stimulus to the desire of conquering for himself. He was nevertheless one of the best soldiers of the cross, so far as military skill availed — bold, 88 powerful, keen, and active; and possessing that sort of shrewd and even wily art, which, joined with his other qualities, formed an enterprising and successful leader, more perhaps than a distinguished knight.

With him, however, came the noblest of all the Christian Chivalry, Tancred — whose valour, generosity, enthusiasm and courtesy, have been the theme of many a song — of whom Tasso, in seeking to describe him in the highest language of poetry, could say nothing more than the truth,

Vien poi Tancredi, e non è alcun fra tanti
Tranne Rinaldo — O feritor maggiore,
O più bel di maniere e di sembianti
O più eccelso ed entrepido di core.34

[Then came Tancred, and none was ever better amongst
Them but Rinaldo — Or a fighter more great,
Or more fine of manner, and of countenance
Or more excellent and intrepid of heart. — Elf.ed.]

Few characters can be conceived more opposed to each other than those of the relations,35 Tancred and Boemond; and yet we find Tancred willingly serving in the army of the Prince of Tarentum, as second to that chief. The same unambitious modesty is to be discovered throughout the whole history of the young knight; and though we ever behold him opposed to meannesses, by whomsoever they may be adopted, we still see him willing to take upon himself, the danger and labour of an inferior station.

Under the banners of these chiefs marched a host of Italian and Norman nobles; the army, it is said, amounting to ten thousand horse,36 and an immense multitude of foot, in which view of the forces we must remember, that only men of noble birth were usually 89 admitted to fight on horseback.37 These troops were even increased as they marched to the sea-coast of Apulia; and the great body of those Normans who, not a century before, had taken complete possession of the country, now left it for the Holy Land.

Mills,38 following his particular theory, supposes Urban the pope to smile with triumphant self-gratulation, on seeing the army of Boemond depart; but it seems strange, that the prelate should rejoice in the absence of the very men by whom he had been always protected, while his enemies remained, and were even in possession of the old church at St. Peter39 at Rome, as we learn by a contemporary crusader.

The forces of Boemond and Tancred landed at Durazzo, and made their way with much more regularity than could have been expected, through Epirus.40 They were harassed, however, on their march by various skirmishes with the Greek troops, who did every thing in their power to destroy the crusading army, although Alexius41 had sent messengers to Boemond himself congratulating him on his arrival, and promising every kind of assistance. These attacks, nevertheless, only amounted to a petty degree of annoyance, till the host of the cross came to the passage of the Axius. Here, a part of the forces having traversed the river with almost the whole of the cavalry, the rear of the army was suddenly attacked by an infinitely superior body of Greeks.42

Tancred, already on the other side, lost not a moment, but, spurring his horse into the water, followed by about two thousand knights, he charged the Greeks so vigorously, as to drive them back with considerable loss in killed and prisoners. When brought before Boemond, the captives justified themselves by avouching the commands of the emperor, and Tancred 90 would fain have pursued and exterminated the forces of the perfidious Greek. Boemond, however, more prudently forbore, and, without retaliation of any kind, advanced to Adrianople.

I see no reason to quality this moderation as subtilty, which Mills has not scrupled to do. Boemond was artful beyond all doubt, but this was not a fair instance of any thing but wisdom and self-command. At Adrianople, well knowing the character of Alexius, to whom he had frequently been opposed, and foreseeing that his troops might be irritated by various acts of annoyance,43 Boemond drew up his army, and, in a calm and temperate speech, represented to them that they had taken up arms in the cause of Christ, and therefore, that it was their duty to refrain from all acts of hostility towards their fellow-christians.

Shortly after this, the Prince of Tarentum was met by deputies from the emperor, inviting him to come on with all speed to Constantinople, leaving his army behind, under the command of Tancred. Boemond at first refused to trust himself in the power of his ancient enemy,44 but Godfrey of Bouillon having visited him in person, and guaranteed his security, the Italian chief agreed to the arrangement proposed, and accompanied the Duke of Loraine to the imperial palace. Gold and dominion were always motives of great force with the mind of Boemond, and Alexius did not spare such temptations, either present or to come, for the purpose of inducing the Prince of Tarentum to do homage to the eastern empire. His promises were limitless, and the actual presents45 which he heaped upon the Normo-Italian, immense. He also granted him, it is said, a territory in Romania, consisting, in 91 length, of as much ground as a horse could travel in fifteen days; and, in breadth,46 of as much as could be traversed in eight; besides which, he loaded him with jewels and gold, and rich vestments, till Boemond, from one of his most inveterate enemies, became one of his firmest allies. This, indeed, proceeded from no confidence or friendship on either side. Boemond still felt how little Alexius could forgive the injuries he had in former days inflicted, and dared not trust himself to eat of the meat set before him at the emperor’s table.

Alexius, with all the penetration of his race, evidently dived into the Norman’s thoughts, and saw that he aspired even to the imperial crown itself.47 No reliance, therefore, existed between them; but on the one hand Boemond, for considerations of interest, forgot his dignity, and did homage to the emperor, while Alexius, on his part, agreed that the homage should be void, if the promises he made were not exactly fulfilled.48

The news of his relation’s humiliation soon reached Tancred, who was leading on their united forces towards Constantinople; and though unquestionably, the lamentation attributed to him by his biographer49 is somewhat more poetical than real, little doubt can be entertained that the gallant prince was painfully struck by Boemond’s disgraceful concessions. Hugh of Vermandois had done homage to obtain his liberty; Godfrey of Bouillon, to restore peace and unanimity between the Christian emperor and the crusaders; Boemond sold his homage, with no palliating circumstance.

The determination of Tancred seems to have been taken almost immediately on hearing this news, and marching upon Constantinople as if it were his intention to follow exactly the course of his relation, he 92 suddenly crossed the Hellespont50 without giving notice to any one, and joined the army of Godfrey at Chalcedon.51

This conduct greatly irritated Alexius, and he made several efforts to bring Tancred back without success; but the arrival of Raimond de St. Giles, Count of Toulouse, with the immense army of the Languedocian crusaders, soon called the attention of the emperor in another direction. The Count of Toulouse has been very variously represented, and no doubt can exist that he was a bold and skilful leader, a courageous and resolute man. He was, it is said, intolerant and tenacious of reverence, fond of pomp and display, and withal revengeful, though his revenge was always of a bold and open character. Not so his avarice, which led him to commit as many pitiful meannesses as ever sprang from that basest of desires. He was proud, too, beyond all question; but, where his covetousness did not overbalance the other great principle of his nature, he maintained, in his general conduct, that line of moral firmness which dignifies pride, and raises it almost to a virtue.

Under the banners of the Count of Toulouse, marched the gay Chivalry of all the South of France — Gascons, and Provençals, and Auvergnats — people, in whose hearts, the memory of Saracen invasions from Spain, was still fresh; and whose quick and passionate dispositions had at once embraced with enthusiasm the 93 holy war. A glorious train of lords and knights followed their noble chief, and the legate of the pope, as well as several other bishops, gave religious dignity to this body of the crusaders.

The count directed his course by Sclavonia towards Greece, notwithstanding that the season was unfavourable, as he set out in winter.52 During the journey he displayed, in the highest degree, every quality of a great commander. Innumerable difficulties, on which we cannot pause, assailed him even during the first part of his march, through the barren and inhospitable passes, which lay between his own fair land and Greece. When he had reached the dominions of Alexius, whose call for aid he had not forgotten, the count imagined, to use the words of his chaplain, that he was in his native land, so much did he rely upon the welcome and protection of the Greek emperor. But he, like the chiefs who had preceded him, was deceived, and the same series of harassing persecutions awaited him on the way. An act of seasonable,53 but barbarous vengeance, however, in mutilating and disfiguring several of the prisoners, so much frightened the savage hordes which the emperor had cast upon his track, that the rest of the journey passed in comparative tranquillity. Like those who had gone before, the count was permitted to enter the imperial city, with but few attendants.

Here the same proposal of rendering homage was made to Raimond, which had been addressed to the other leaders of the crusade, but he rejected it at once with dignified indignation, and maintained his resolution with unalterable firmness.54 The means which had been tried with Godfrey of Bouillon were not employed against the Count of Toulouse; and as no very strong body of crusaders was soon expected from Europe, the emperor seems confidently to have anticipated 94 the destruction of the Languedocian force. The Bosphorus lay between it and the armies of Godfrey, of Hugh, of Boemond, and of Robert of Flanders,55 whose arrival we have not thought it necessary to dwell upon, as it was accompanied by no circumstance of interest. Alexius had taken especial care, that no vessels should remain on the other side of the Straits, which would facilitate the return of the crusaders even if they should wish it,56 and Boemond was devoted to his cause from motives of interest.

Under these circumstances Alexius did not scruple to order a night attack to be made upon the camp of the French knights. At first it proved successful, and many fell under the treacherous sword of the Greeks. At length, however, the Languedocians recovered from their surprise, repulsed the enemy with great loss, and for some time gave full sway to their indignation. Raimond even resolved to declare war against the emperor, but abandoned his intention on finding that the other princes would not succour him, and that Boemond threatened to join his arms to those of Alexius. Thus upheld, the emperor still continued to insist on the homage of the count; but Raimond declared that he would sooner lay down his head upon the block than yield to such an indignity.57 “He had come,”58 he said, “to fight for one Lord, which was Christ, and for him he had abandoned country, and goods, and lands; but no other lord would he acknowledge; though, if the emperor would in person, lead the host towards Constantinople, he would willingly put himself and his troops under his august command.”

All that could ultimately be obtained from him, even at the intercession of his companions in arms, was a vow that he would, neither directly nor indirectly, 95 do any act which could militate against the life or honour of the emperor.59

This concession, however, seemed to satisfy Alexius, upon whose weakness the ambitious spirit of Boemond was pressing somewhat too hard. The power of Raimond of Toulouse, the monarch saw, might be used as a good counterpoise to the authority which the Prince of Tarentum was inclined to assume, and in consequence, Alexius soon completely changed his conduct, and loaded the count with distinctions and courtesy. The pleasures of the imperial palace, the rivalry which the artful emperor contrived to raise up between him and Boemond, and the false but polished society of the Greek court, excited and pleased the Count of Toulouse, who remained some time in the midst of pomp and enjoyment.

His character also, though it had much of the steady firmness of the north, had, in common with that of his countrymen in general, a sparkling and vivacious urbanity, a splendid yet easy grace, which suited the taste of the Greeks much more than the simple manners of the northern crusaders. Indeed to judge from the terms in which she speaks of him, his handsome person and elegant deportment, seem to have made no small impression on the imagination of the princess Anna,60 although Raimond had already passed the middle age.

Boemond, however, had by this time departed, and had marched from Chalcedon with Godfrey and the reset of the crusading host61 towards Nice, the capital of the Turkish kingdom of Roum.62 His honour demanded the presence of the Count of Toulouse, and 96 abandoning the pleasures of Constantinople, he superintended the embarkation of his troops, and hastened to joining the rest of his companions in arms.

Scarcely had the forces of the count quitted Constantinople, when another army appeared under the walls of that city. Its principal leader was Robert, Duke of Normandy — a man, debauched, weak, and unstable; endowed with sufficient talents to have dignified his illustrious station, had he possessed that rare quality of mind which may be called conduct. He was eloquent in speech, brave in the field, skilful in warlike dispositions, and personally humane, even to excess;63 but at the same time he was versatile as the winds, and so easily persuaded, that the common expression, he had no will of his own, was, perhaps, more applicable to him, than to any other man that ever existed.

On the first preaching of the crusade, he had caught the flame of enthusiasm with others, and perhaps not more than those around him; for we must not take the immediate sale of his duchy of Normandy to William Rufus, as a proof of his zeal. It was, in fact, but a proof of that wretched facility which ultimately brought about his ruin. The price he obtained,64 was only ten thousand marks of silver, but with so petty a sum this modern Esau thought he could conquer worlds. With him was Stephen, Count of Blois, more famous in the council than the field,65 while all the Norman and English crusaders of rank, together with Eustace, brother of Godfrey of Bouillon,66 joined themselves to his forces.

Thus, followed by a numerous and well-equipped army, Robert took the way of Italy, and having encountered the pope at Lucca, proceeded to Apulia, where he remained to pass the winter. Here, however,67 many deserted his army, and returned to their 97 native land, and several were drowned, subsequently, in their passage to Durazzo; but, on the whole, the march of Robert of Normandy, was more easy and less disastrous than that of any other chief of the crusaders.

W find no mention of any attack or annoyance on the part of Alexius; and, on the arrival of the Norman host at Constantinople, the oath of homage seems to have been presented and received, with a sort of quiet indifference, well according with the indolent and careless character of the Duke.68 Alexius simply informed the leaders, that Godfrey, Boemond, Hugh, and the rest, had undergone the ceremony proposed. “We are not greater than they,”69 replied Robert, and the vows were taken without hesitation.

Loaded with presents, and supplied with money and provisions, of both which, Robert stood in great want, the Norman crusaders now passed the Hellespont, and marched towards Nice to join their companions. The timid Alexius thus found himself delivered from the last body of these terrific allies; and, indeed, the description given of their arrival, in rapid succession, before Constantinople, is not at all unlike the end of Camaralzaman’s history in the Arabian Nights, where no sooner is one army disposed of, than another is seen advancing towards the city from a different quarter of the globe.





FOOTNOTES

1   Robertus Monachus, lib. i.

2  Guibert of Nogent.

3   Guibert of Nogent.

4  See note VIII.

5  Will. Malmsbury.

6  Will. of Tyre; Albert of Aix.

7  Albert of Aix.

8  Guibert of Nogent.

9  Guibert; Will. Tyr.

10  Albert of Aix.

11  William of Tyre.

12  Albert of Aix.

13  Albert Aquensis.

14  Will. Tyre.; Albert. Aquens.

15  Guibert.

16  Fulcher; Guibert; Will. Tyr.; Albert.

17  I have taken perhaps more pains than was necessary to investigate this part of the crusader’s proceedings, which I found nearly as much confused in the writings of Mills, as in those of the contemporary authors. Some assert that the whole mass of the western crusaders proceeded in one body through Italy: but finding that Fulcher, who accompanied Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, never mentions Hugh of Vermandois; that Guibert speaks of that prince’s departure first; that the Archbishop of Tyre marks the divisions distinctly, and that he certainly embarked at a different port in Italy from the rest, I have been led to conclude that, though probably looking up to Hugh as the brother of their sovereign, the three great leaders proceeded separately on their march. Robertus Monachus is evidently mistaken altogether, as he joined the Count of Toulouse with the army of Hugh, when we know from Raimond d’Agiles that that nobleman conducted his troops through Sclavonia.

18  Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.

19  Guibert.

20  Guibert, lib. ii.

21  Will. Tyr. lib. ii.

22  Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.

23  Albert of Aix.

24  Guibert.

25  Albert of Aix; Robertus Monachus; Will. Tyr.

26  Will. Tyr; Rob. Mon.; Guibert; Albert. Aquens.

27  Albert of Aix.

28   Mills, in speaking of this interview, does not distinguish between the coat of arms and the mantle or pallium. They were, however, very different, and never, that I know of, worn together. The coat of arms was usually extremely small; and the form may be gathered from the anecdote of an ancient baron, who not readily finding his coat of arms, seized the cloth of a banner, made a slit in the centre with his sword, and passing his head through the aperture, thus went to battle. These customs, however, often changed, and we find many instances of the coat of arms being worn long. The mantle was the garb of peace, and was even more richly decorated than the coat of arms. Another peaceful habiliment was the common surcoat, which differed totally from the tunic worn over the armour, having large sleeves and cuffs, as we find from the notes upon Joinville. The size of the garment may be very nearly ascertained from the same account, which mentions 736 ermines having been used in one surcoat worn by the King of France. See Joinville by Ducange.

For the use of the pallium, or mantle, see St. Palaye — notes on the fourth part.

29  I have not chosen to represent this interview in the colours with which Mills has painted it. The princess Anna, from whom he took his view of the subject, can in no degree be depended upon. Her object was to represent her father as a dignified monarch, receiving, with cold pomp, a train of barbarous warriors; but the truth was, that Alexius was in no slight measure terrified at Godfrey and his host, and sought by every means to cajole him into compliance with his wishes. Almost every other historian declares that the crusaders were received with the utmost condescension and courtesy. Robert of Paris, one of Godfrey’s noble followers, did indeed seat himself on the throne of Alexius, and replied to Baldwin’s remonstrance by a braggart boast, for which the emperor only reproved him by a contemptuous sneer. This, however, would, if any thing, prove that the pride and haughtiness was on the part of the crusaders rather than on that of the imperial court.

30  Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.

31  Albert of Aix.

32  Vertot.

33  Robert the Monk.

34  Gerusalemme, cant. i.

35  What the relationship exactly was I have not been able to discover. Mills does not satisfy me that the mother of Tancred was the sister of Robert Guiscard. The expressions of Ralph of Caen on the subject appear to be obscure.

36  Albert of Aix.

37  St. Palaye.

38  Mills, chap. 3.

39  Fulcher.

40  Raoul de Caen.

41  William of Tyre.

42  Raoul de Caen; William of Tyre; Albert of Aix; Guibert.

43  Orderic. Vital. lib. ix.

44  Boemond had inherited all his father’s hatred to the Greek sovereigns, and had waged many a bloody and successful war against Alexius himself.

45  Will. Tyr.; Albert. Aquens.

46  Raoul de Caen; Guibert.

47  Alexiad par Ducange.

48  Guibert. lib. iii.

49  Radulph. Cad. cap. 11.

50  Radulph. Cadom. cap. 12.

51  Albertus Aquensis says that Tancred took with him the whole army. William of Tyre follows the same opinion, as well as Guibert. Orderic Vital declares that when the troops were passing, Tancred dressed himself as a common soldier, and passed amongst the crowd, but Radulphus Cadomensis (or Raoul of Caen, as the French translate his name), who was his companion and friend in after years, makes no mention of his having taken with him any part of the forces he commanded, merely stating that in his eagerness to pass before he was discovered, he aided to row the boat himself.

52  Raimond d’Agiles.

53  Ibid.

54  Ibid.; Will. Tyr; Guibert.

55  Guibert; Albert of Aix.

56  Will. Tyr.

57  Guibert.

58  Raimond d’Agiles.

59  Guibert; Raimond; Will. Tyr.

60  Alexiad.

61  Raimond d’Agiles; Albert of Aix.

62  Raimond d’Agiles expressly states that the army of the Count of Toulouse, which he accompanied to the Holy Land, did not join the other crusaders till they were under the walls of Nice. Mills is therefore wrong in writing that the Provençals joined the other soldiers of the cross before their arrival at Nice, and then let them march on again before them.

63  Guibert, lib. ii.

64  Orderic Vital.

65  Guibert.

66  William of Tyre; Albert of Aix.

67  Fulcher.

68  Albert of Aix; Fulcher.

69  Will. Tyr.




†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

Valid CSS!